Readers' comments

The majority of you are corret on all points. Art is what it is -art. And usually, because of ignorance, artists are taken for granted and their works are shuffled around for the sake of usury and prestige.

I, being one of 'excellence' find contempt in the arts because of who I am. I have been in front of courts because of my art and the courts can be very malicious which is not surprising in America. Lawyers don't care about us, they only care about the money that line their pockets.

However, we must not allow 'paper' to dictate the terms of our existance, no more than allowing one person to laud over another to justify value and worth.

How do we value art, anyway? Here, in America, I am regarded as the only living man-of-color specializing in the maritime arts. Yet, in a gallery my work can sell for thousands, but at an auction it is maliciously devalued. So, where's the sense of checks and balances?
Frankly, there is none. Somewhere down the pipeline it became lost by greed. Bottomline.

We've become a polluted society ignorant and devoid of values, beauty, and understanding. Beauty for us 'today' has become a form of prostitution in its highest form. We can no longer appreciate the artist or the work. It's about "give me".

We all know that 'The Law is an Ass'; but the legal profession has obviously created a very lucrative niche market for itself in this area. Firstly by pointing out a problem which very few people realize exists and then by providing a (very expensive) remedy.
They can do this because a lot of people who are in the market for art don't know their 'Art from their elbow'.

I'd say the market for modern art is pretty phony as it is. That is to say, even authentic works are greatly overpriced for what they really are. So if it all becomes questionable, I applaud. Socking it to people silly enough to buy this "stuff" delights me no end.

Normally, people dont doubt the credibility of a reputable firm or person to do the authentication work unless it is challenged by a comparably authoritative body. The unresolved judgment has to on occasion resort to litigation for the ultimate decision. Again, those on the panel will give regards to a lot of methods covering both the science and the art. In the absence of documentary proof, the judgment will be based more on the art than science. The case will go opposite if otherwise. Both are too subtle for ordinary people to understand. If you choose to assign more than one expert to make a comment, the result might differ widely. Therefore, if there is no challenge raised on any authenticated piece of art, the auction will go smoothly under the gavel fall. The buyer will bring home the valuable without ever questioning again the authenticity unless and until.... oh, forget it.

Yikes...$$Millions for a canvas that looks like it was mostly done with a 9" roller! I'm sure the cognoscenti can explain why I am too stupid to appreciate the subtlety here but I personally think the folks who shell out fortunes for this are being swindled whether they get the genuine item or not. Art - WTF??

Most people who purchase art these days seem to be pretentious philistines or hard nosed investors. Neither of them really appreciate or have any fondness for the arts as such in any case , but are only in the market because they think they can make money or show off to their friends. Frankly these people are totally dead inside - there is no warmth , feeling , empathy or joy within them , nothing , no scintilla of humanity within - they are really totally dead. If I like a work I like it , frankly I don't care who made it or what it is said to be worth. Perhaps if the charlatans left the market and allow those of us who have a genuine love for art get on with it , that would be no bad thing at all. Leave us dilettantes to enjoy our art in peace , it would be good riddance to bad rubbish. There would be many on all sides who would protest at what they consider such an outraged , but believe me there are also many of us who would welcome such a state.

In Germany, there was a series of scandals around forged paintings, and it became clear that a problem is that authenticators sometimes receive several tens of thousands of Euros fees for accepting a painting as genuine, but not for rejecting, which gives them a great incentive to accept doubtful cases (and a number turned out to be forgeries later).

Of course, buyers should question the whole premise of the art market, namely that a work of art receives value from its origin, not what it is. Works of art, in other words, are treated as relics.

In my eyes, people who pay millions for something that could have been produced by a monkey, quite literally, don't deserve better. They are trading illusions of value, and it is only natural that in this line of business, they sometimes will become victims of illusionism themselves.

Why not create a website where these modern art are clearly displayed, and anonimous but vetted art experts "authenticate" the piece of art under discussion. Proposed title of this website: "The Emperor's New Clothes".

in china, authentication is protected as expert's opinion under THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH. if malice on the authentor's part can not be proved, it is hard to make him legally liable for his mistaking in authentication.
authentor builds up his name by his expertise and morality. in china, art authentication is such a chaos lack of regulations. above the chaos will always outstand a few conscious authentors, who will rebuild their reputations.
living artists earn more in china? such a surprise to me, a native chinese. no artist is immortal. he can not authenticate his works after his death. even his authentication would be authenticed by others after his death. what if a living artist not be willing to authenticate a real work of his early life?

"A judge allowed this case to proceed -- and allowed -- and theyrby helped, the lawyers conduct this $7 million fee looting of this foundation."
Most judges being formerly lawyers probably goes some way to explaining their mindset......

I just left law school for this reason after moving to a tech hub and seeing the opportunity for the smart and driven. Send a bunch of kids out into the world to be sharks with nothing but competitiveness and a piece of paper... they get scrappy. They should be creating.

Surely the problem is not only the legal threats to "authenticators" but also that the styles of many modern artists are easy to counterfeit because of the low level of skill and technique required to produce the originals. In a world where Damien Hirst is able to churn out crap using production-line methods and sell it for millions, the concept of "value" seems to be very arbitrary.

It is precisely the shadow of litigation that gives the art authentication in the west any legitimacy, a contrast that they did not point out in comparing the western authentication market to that of China. Without this recourse, rubber stamping “experts” are free to authenticate anything that crosses their desk, possibly costing some unsuspecting soul millions.
But really this is just a story about a (fairly minor) shift in the equilibrium from transaction costs in an investment market of the super-rich. It is only a matter of time before technological advances take many of these issues off the table. Hopefully until then more of these works will spend time in museums.

The Economist raises significant and troubling concerns, but it fails to address the distortions in the art market that these "authentication gatekeepers" also cause. "Authenticity" isn't always black and white, and these authentication experts have significant discretion in making authentication decisions. Yes, the rising tide of lawsuits against authentication experts is a problem for the art market, but it is also a symptom of underlying problems with the way that authenticity is determined and recognized in the art market. Comments from the Heritagist, a blog on issues of art and cultural property law: http://www.theheritagist.com/2012/11/the-role-of-authenticity-gatekeeper....